Your list pretty much proves that we should remove the word "vacant" from our vocabulary.

Given that likely departments in the US responds to probably 10's of thousands of reports, if not more, of fires in vacant/abandoned structures every year, those on that list represent a very, very, very small percentage.

Again, I am a numbers guys. I make my decisions on probabilities based on numbers, not a few stories posted on a website (many of which seem to have nothing to do with occupants on arrival).

I have asked every pro-go "if conditions allows" person on this forum a very simple question.... In what percentage of the abandoned buildings in your district say over the last 3 years, have you found occupants on arrival? .5%? 1%? 3%? 5%? And nobody can or will give me a statistical answer so we can discuss this based on concrete percentages vs. risk involved.

There is NEVER a simple question from you. The truth is you are pushing your agenda. Despite the fact that myself and others have said we don't care what you do as long as you stop trying to push your agenda on others.

There are enough instances of people being in those buildings to justify a search IF STRUCTURAL CONDITIONS, AS WELL AS EXTENT OF THE FIRE, allow a search and/or fire attack to be done. If a building is labeled and a cursory search is done and no one is found, if local rulings allow then the building can either be allowed to burn down, or attack can be made from the exterior.

I have asked every pro-go "if conditions allows" person on this forum a very simple question.... In what percentage of the abandoned buildings in your district say over the last 3 years, have you found occupants on arrival? .5%? 1%? 3%? 5%? And nobody can or will give me a statistical answer so we can discuss this based on concrete percentages vs. risk involved.

Hey numb-ers guy:
When you manage to make a fire and you crap yourself, what percentage of the poo is yellowish brown? How fast in MPH can you run away from a fire and be far enough out of earshot to not hear a person screaming?
How long does it take you to go pee pee and then casually stroll over to the rig after the tones drop?

Exactly how much of a report of occupancy from "the guy on the street" does it take to override the "X" and the dangers that caused the "X" to be put up?

If ANY kind of report of occupancy, no matter how sketchy will get the members inside, what is the point of marking the buildings?

The point of marking the building is still the same. It alerts the responding personnel to the fact that there ARE known dangers with the building.

In the absence of credible evidence or reports of occupancy, the "X" tells the units to initiate a defensive operation. With credible evidence or reports of occupancy, the "X" tells the units that if fire conditions allow for it, then personnel should use extreme caution with any efforts to conduct a search for victims and then transition to a defensive operation when search operations are finished.

I have asked every pro-go "if conditions allows" person on this forum a very simple question.... In what percentage of the abandoned buildings in your district say over the last 3 years, have you found occupants on arrival? .5%? 1%? 3%? 5%? And nobody can or will give me a statistical answer so we can discuss this based on concrete percentages vs. risk involved.

The question itself is "very simple", however answering the question may not be so simple. For one, most departments probably do not specifically track that information in a fashion that it would be readily retrievable. Plus, the average firefighter probably lacks the access to whatever data would be available.

Additionally, the statistics you are asking for potentially have little practical relevance at the time of an actual incident. The fact that a department historically has a very small percentage of incidents in which "abandoned buildings" have victims inside upon arrival only means that the odds are good that subsequent incidents COULD have the same result. It DOES NOT guarantee that the incident at hand WILL have that same result.

Put another way, if I researched all fires in my department's history and found that we have never had an actual working fire dispatched between 3pm and 4pm, then according to your line of thinking, there would be no need for us to even respond to a report of a fire at 3:18pm tomorrow since it couldn't possibly be an actual fire since we've never had one at that time of the day.

The fact is, we will respond because 1) it's our job to do so and 2) because it could be an actual fire and conditions will allow us to do so!

Given that likely departments in the US responds to probably 10's of thousands of reports, if not more, of fires in vacant/abandoned structures every year, those on that list represent a very, very, very small percentage.

Again, I am a numbers guys. I make my decisions on probabilities based on numbers, not a few stories posted on a website (many of which seem to have nothing to do with occupants on arrival).

I have asked every pro-go "if conditions allows" person on this forum a very simple question.... In what percentage of the abandoned buildings in your district say over the last 3 years, have you found occupants on arrival? .5%? 1%? 3%? 5%? And nobody can or will give me a statistical answer so we can discuss this based on concrete percentages vs. risk involved.

You are not a "numbers" guy... you are a 2nd grade math guy. You use simple division to arrive at a conclusion.

A real "numbers" guy would use algebra and allow for variables in his equation to deliver an answer.

I don't think that we need to remove it from our vocabulary, I just think people need to understand that it means a building does not have any regular tenants. I think most of us understand that we need to be observant for signs of being occupied by someone, and to search according to the conditions found. Let's not abandon common sense.

I was half kidding... but in reality, we should remove it as a standard description in a size up or tactical decision process.

Instead, we should start with occupied and use visual indicators and pre-planning to arrive at a "go" or "no go" decision.

If you dig deep into your thought process, you'll find that you are doing this if you are actually the guy in command at such a fire. You take all the clues and arrive at a decision. Most likely in about 10 seconds.

There is NEVER a simple question from you. The truth is you are pushing your agenda. Despite the fact that myself and others have said we don't care what you do as long as you stop trying to push your agenda on others.

There are enough instances of people being in those buildings to justify a search IF STRUCTURAL CONDITIONS, AS WELL AS EXTENT OF THE FIRE, allow a search and/or fire attack to be done. If a building is labeled and a cursory search is done and no one is found, if local rulings allow then the building can either be allowed to burn down, or attack can be made from the exterior.

Yes, I am pushing my agenda of responsible risks and simply saying "no" when there is no valid reason for making entry, just like you are pushing your "no building is empty until we say so" and "we are compelled to make entry because it's our job" lines of crap.

The simple fact is there are thousands of young firefighters and officers that read this forum daily that never post, and yes, I feel that they need to hear the other side of this argument. They need the facts to make decisions in their lives daily, and need to understand that there are those in the fire service that will fully support decisions that they may make to minimize or eliminate risk to their personnel but not following the "we always need to do _________ simply because we are fireman" crap that some of you spew out.

They need the facts to make decisions in their lives daily, and need to understand that there are those in the fire service that will fully support decisions that they may make to minimize or eliminate risk to their personnel but not following the "we always need to do _________ simply because we are fireman" crap that some of you spew out.

So where are all these others that fully support these decisions? In all the years that we have been having this discussion on here, in all of the numerous threads, in all of the thousands of back-and-forths.........YOU are the only one who has vocalized it. Never, not once can I recall another person supporting you or your line of bullschit. Never. Ever. Not once. Ever. Never. Not one, single, solitary time. Ever.

Seems to me that YOU are the one spewing the line of crap......Just saying.

A pair of fires after midnight, last night. Both were board ups and, apparently "vacant". Both appeared to be completely secured, with no visible entry points. Both were wood-frame, balloon construction built around 1900, or so; typical for the area. This means true, dimensional lumber with nails to hold them together, along with plaster and lathe along with the associated void and pipe-chases. It's very easy for fire to spread but, sh@t can burn for a long time without compromise.

Heavy fire was presenting on arrival, meaning more than one room.

Long story short, no victims were found. Fire went out and no injuries. The in-between story? Even with all of the size-up indicators of a vacant/unoccupied building with heavy fire and being boarded up, the origin of both fires is undetermined, as of right now. But, both did originate from the interior.

No victims found. Vacant/dilapidated/abandoned building. Appeared secure, until we searched the second floor for victims and extension. Then it became obvious where someone, or "something" was entering and leaving, along with evidence of cooking materials, clothes and bedding, along with full toilets, etc...if you know what I mean.

Yes, I am pushing my agenda of responsible risks and simply saying "no" when there is no valid reason for making entry, just like you are pushing your "no building is empty until we say so" and "we are compelled to make entry because it's our job" lines of crap.

You and your kind, the "Uber Safety NAZIS" that believe that you can make firefighting 100% safe are one of the reasons I am glad to be nearing the end of my career. Frankly you make me want to vomit big green bile infested chunks all over every damn post you make. YOU SIR, are NOT a firefighter, YOU NEVER WERE. You aren't even a decent human being. For all your bluster of "No, I wouldn't attempt to rescue that child in aburning car because it isn't my job, to yeah, we couldn't get in so the victim died and I slept like a baby, to they didn't have a working smoke detector so it is not my problem that they died, to we have never had anybody ever in an abandoned building so it isn't probable that they are in there and died, to yes, I would stop firefighters from trying to rescue my family if your house was on fire...all it proves is you don't have the stones to do the job...

The reality is, we realize when we take this job, or volunteer, that there are tisks involved. Firefighting is inherently dangerous, we do our best to do it as saely as possible. But in order to fight interior fires, and attempt rescues you MUST expose yourself to hazards, heat, smoke, flame, toxic gases, and struc,tural issues. There is no way to avoid that other than to never, under any circumstances make entry into a building on fire. That is not the fire service I know and not the one that actually protects and saves lives. It may be the way you envision the fire service, but the majority of us will NEVER see that as right.

For the 10 BILLIONTH TIME. WE do have a DUTY to the citizens we joined the fire department to protect. That duty, despite your insane ramblings to the contrary, doesn't mean that any of us are going to run into a building in a Kamikaze charge. I have said this as well as many others here, we will evaluate the RISK versus REWARD, taking into account the condition of the building and the extent of the fire, AND IF CONDITIONS ALLOW, a search, arescue attempt, and perhaps fire attack will be done. If conditions are so poor that no interior work can be done then we will do an exterior attack to control the fire. If people are in there we will take more risks because a life is involved. That doesn't mean we are suicidal. It does mean that the crew that goes interior makes the decision to continue or retreat by the conditions they experience.

Let me ask you this...Suppose you get a 911 call for the abandoned building on the edge of town. You know, the one with the roof partially collapsed, where the walls are leaning, and it hasn't been legitimately used in years. The caller told dispatch that they saw 2 children enter the building chasing their cat and once insde a partial collapse occurred. Will YOU attempt a rescue of those kids? I know what i would do, and I think I know what you will do...BUT WHY?

The simple fact is there are thousands of young firefighters and officers that read this forum daily that never post, and yes, I feel that they need to hear the other side of this argument. They need the facts to make decisions in their lives daily, and need to understand that there are those in the fire service that will fully support decisions that they may make to minimize or eliminate risk to their personnel but not following the "we always need to do _________ simply because we are fireman" crap that some of you spew out.

The problem with your so called "ARGUMENT" is you base it on your miniscule experiences in RURAL communities that have as much in common with New York City, Detroit, Chicago, Boston, Milwaukee, Los Angeles, Dallas, or any other urban or metro area as they do with the dark side of the moon. You say you have never had any squatters or kids in these abandoned buildings...good for you. You can defend this 100% how? Video surveilance? 24 hours police or private security patrols? How do you know 100% for sure that there has NEVER been kids or a squatter in any of those buildings? YOU CAN'T and that is the point. You have been lucky so far, but that luck may end with the very next fire to one of those buildings and little Betty Lou Who's Mom isn't going to be too receptive to your facts, figures, and probabilities. She will never get past the fact that you did NOTHING to even attempt to save her daughter. That, and the bad press, and possible legal action, may finally affect your sleep.

The truth is TRAINING is now having to replace the lack of experience due to the reduction of fires in many places. That however does NOT mean we stop doing interior firefighting, it does not mean we stop going inside to search for and rescue victims of fire. It means we have to better teach these new kids coming up about building construction, about fire behavior, about properly using their PPE, about proper search techniques, and proper fire attack strategies. Of course there will always be "No Go" situations where interior ops are simple not feasible. But to teach an entire generation of firefighters that everything is "NO GO" until decided otherwise is simple wrong, inefficient, and not what we were called for.

You post this nonsense "we always need to do _________ simply because we are fireman" crap that some of you spew out. I can see where that is in contrast with your "ME FIRST and F*** anybody in serious trouble" crap that you spew out.

I know it is beyond your understanding to believe that those of us that actually still go inside and fight fire, and train firefighters to do that very thing, do it as safely as possible. I have stopped firefighters from going into buildings where there were no victims and NOTHING to save, where structural conditions as well fire conditions, made it dangerous and unnecessary. Or pulled them out when conditions made being inside untenable any longer.

Your pathetic inability to read and comprehend what others are saying says less about what they said and more about your child like fingers in your ears need to attempt to shout down everyone else.

Yes, I am pushing my agenda of responsible risks and simply saying "no" when there is no valid reason for making entry, just like you are pushing your "no building is empty until we say so" and "we are compelled to make entry because it's our job" lines of crap.

The simple fact is there are thousands of young firefighters and officers that read this forum daily that never post, and yes, I feel that they need to hear the other side of this argument. They need the facts to make decisions in their lives daily, and need to understand that there are those in the fire service that will fully support decisions that they may make to minimize or eliminate risk to their personnel but not following the "we always need to do _________ simply because we are fireman" crap that some of you spew out.

We are more certain that somebody "could" be in there, than you are certain that somebody "is not".

We assume that risk, calculate the outcome, and make the decision wether to go or not. Your inability to understand all the information that has been explained countless times to you in here, has been disregarded, or you are just simply trying to operate beyond your realm of knoweledge and you don't know when to say you have been bested. This leads me to the conclusion that...

YOU CANNOT BE IN THE FIRE SERVICE.

I'm not saying that I don't believe that you work for a fire department. I'm saying as a responsible active firefighter, I am pulling your card. You're kicked out...no more...pack your bags...you are done, thanks for playing.

I think that Bobby is in training, hoping that being obtuse will become an Oyympic event in the next few years...

Posted by Bobby

The simple fact is there are thousands of young firefighters and officers that read this forum daily that never post, and yes, I feel that they need to hear the other side of this argument. They need the facts to make decisions in their lives daily, and need to understand that there are those in the fire service that will fully support decisions that they may make to minimize or eliminate risk to their personnel but not following the "we always need to do _________ simply because we are fireman" crap that some of you spew out.

According to the counter at the bottom of the forum main page, there are 264,343 members. There are probably 264,342 of them who look at Bobby's posts and say

‎"The education of a firefighter and the continued education of a firefighter is what makes "real" firefighters. Continuous skill development is the core of progressive firefighting. We learn by doing and doing it again and again, both on the training ground and the fireground."
Lt. Ray McCormack, FDNY

‎"The education of a firefighter and the continued education of a firefighter is what makes "real" firefighters. Continuous skill development is the core of progressive firefighting. We learn by doing and doing it again and again, both on the training ground and the fireground."
Lt. Ray McCormack, FDNY

Yes, I am pushing my agenda of responsible risks and simply saying "no" when there is no valid reason for making entry, just like you are pushing your "no building is empty until we say so" and "we are compelled to make entry because it's our job" lines of crap.In your cowardice, there is no valid reason. Even victims. Your agenda is nothing more then you attempting to justify that cowardice.
If making entry and putting the fire out isn't our job as fire fighters, in fire suppression, what pray tell do you think our job is?
The simple fact is there are thousands of young firefighters and officers that read this forum daily that never post, and yes, I feel that they need to hear the other side of this argument. They need the facts to make decisions in their lives daily, and need to understand that there are those in the fire service that will fully support decisions that they may make to minimize or eliminate risk to their personnel but not following the "we always need to do _________ simply because we are fireman" crap that some of you spew out.I do _______ because I am sworn member of my department, and what I do is clearly spelled out in our mission statement, job description, duties, and requirements, and my departments code of conduct. I have yet to read anything in there about choosing cowardice over the life of a viable victim.

You not offering any sort of "the other side of the argument". You are on here, trying to justify in-action, cowardice, and the pussification of the fire service. The fact you are so far out of touch with how the rest of the fire service operates is mind boggling. How a department keeps you employed is criminal.

My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788Elevator Rescue Information

We rolled up on a fully involved two story wooden cabin a while back; flames shooting 20 feet in the air. No part of this structure was without fire. My chief jumped out of our truck and started yelling in a booming voice to the citizens standing around "IS THERE ANYBODY IN THERE?".

Fire conditions were such that making entry would've been an absolute b!tch, and I was relieved to hear the citizens say "we all made it out". The point I'm trying to make here is that it was a part of his conscience, part of his decision making process and something he considered despite the horrible fire conditions. When the fecal matter hits the air circulation device, WE are a citizen's last line of defense and we owe them every ounce effort we can make, PERIOD.

LA Fire Educator: Every time you post about this topic you scab and defile the history, tradition, pride and honor of the fire service. Shame on you.

We are more certain that somebody "could" be in there, than you are certain that someoosbody "is not".

WRONG!!!. That is not the determining factor on even conducting a primary search for Lose All Fires. It is a very simple HEAT,OXYGEN AND FUEL INSIDE=Lose All Fires OUTSIDE.

We assume that risk, calculate the outcome, and make the decision wether to go or not. Your inability to understand all the information that has been explained countless times to you in here, has been disregarded, or you are just simply trying to operate beyond your realm of knoweledge and you don't know when to say you have been bested. He understands refer to above. This leads me to the conclusion that...

YOU CANNOT BE IN THE FIRE SERVICE.

I'm not saying that I don't believe that you work for a fire department. I'm saying as a responsible active firefighter, I am pulling your card. You're kicked out...no more...pack your bags...you are done, thanks for playing.

Good luck with that I'm sure his superiors are aware of his approach to any situation already........... Yeah, now you are getting the big picture.

I have asked every pro-go "if conditions allows" person on this forum a very simple question.... In what percentage of the abandoned buildings in your district say over the last 3 years, have you found occupants on arrival? .5%? 1%? 3%? 5%? And nobody can or will give me a statistical answer so we can discuss this based on concrete percentages vs. risk involved.

The percentage would be interesting, but not relevant in the decision making process. ONE life saved makes a career of searching (under tenable conditions of course) all structures worthwhile.

If you are not searching, you are nothing more than a janitor. A janitor who has to cool down his garbage before someone comes and hauls it away.

We don’t care anymore what some Podunk’s want to do in their corner of Louisiana. Please stop trying to fill young members’ heads with your nonsense on these boards.

‎"The education of a firefighter and the continued education of a firefighter is what makes "real" firefighters. Continuous skill development is the core of progressive firefighting. We learn by doing and doing it again and again, both on the training ground and the fireground."
Lt. Ray McCormack, FDNY